5 comments about My Rise And Fall.

1. I bought this book on the belief that it would explain to me the very essence of Italian Fascism. Although some important themes and ideas of Mussolini's fascism were discussed, I was disappointed with the lack of detail and expansion. However, I was enthralled by Mussolini's elegant writing style.I found the Duce's view of his own history - however biased - very informing. It gives an intimate view of early 20th century Italy,and in particular, the mood of the Italian people(especially the war veterans). The book's two parts, the first written well before the Second World War and the second during the war, offer a stark comparison of the different outlooks on the world that Mussolini possessed - he was once popular and arrogant, then hated and bitter. The book offers an extraordinary opportunity to take a deep and intimate look inside Mussolini's soul, as well as a thorough - however biased - examination of Fascist Italy. A must for anyone interested in the Duce, Fascism's general themes or World War II in general.



2. one of the best book I have read.
   You do not have to agree or disagree with Mr. Mussolini to enjoy this book. Because you can learn a lot about the will power, the determination, and the courage of the man.



3. I will be brief,a man as large as life as Mussolini was , no one but he could write with his vast knowledge of the political turmoil that was slowly tearing Italy apart in the early 1920's.Too bad he came to Italy in the 20th century instead of the 21st!Getting involved with Hitler and his war gives Western writers an opportunity to demean this man.If you take the time to read this you will find the man to be both highly educated and relentless in his faith for the Italian people to move progressively into the 20th century.Buy this book!!!!



4. This book is actually a compilation of Benito Mussolini's memoirs set approximately 16 years apart: the first being dated c. 1928 only eight years after his Fascisti 'Black Shirts' had assumed power in Rome by plebescite; the second being dated c. 1944 when the Fascist party in Italy was able to retain power only with Germany's occupation and Mussolini's 'rescue' by German forces.
   
   When it comes to Mussolini, most modern readers immediately compare him to Adolf Hitler even though they understand little of what brought fascism to Italy or why Mussolini was so well received at home and abroad. Contrary to what many believe, Mussolini never had a very high opinion of Adolf Hitler and tried desperately to form a political pact with France/England with regards to Italy's future: Mussolini remained opposed to Hitler because Germany was unified with Italy's arch-enemy, Austria: Mussolini formed the ill-fated axis alliance only at the last minute when he was unable to get the concessions he wanted and Germany formally declared war against France in 1940. It would be his demise as Mussolini and his party would lose power in Italy by 1943 and, instead of the great empire they had promised to the Italian populace, Italy had become a vassal state occupied by the German military: Mussolini himself being nothing more than Hitler's puppet and mouthpiece. Thus, through his memoirs, we can follow how he was a favorite defender of freedom against Boshevism in the 20s and 30s adored by the US and England, to becoming nothing more than Hitler's lapdog by 1943.
   
   This is a very important book where, by his own words, one can measure the man for who he was. Unlike Hitler's rambling anti-semitic diatribe in 'Mein Kampf', Mussolini's papers address purely political and social questions adding with his rather pompous flair that he and his Fascisti are an indispensable to the formation and prosperity of the state. He explains why he was motivated to act and describes the political environment he found himself in fighting the socialist, communist, and capitalist interests in Italy. His memoirs are not only interesting from a historical perspective, but also from a political one in that they provide a lot of insight as to the events that were responsible for the development of fascist doctrines in Europe in that period of time.



5. This book is a combination of several primary sources related directly to Benito Mussolini. The first "My Rise" was Mussolini's account of how he came to power in Italy. It has its uses but the reader should be ware that it does omit several parts of his rise to power and it is worth keeping a good Mussolini biography close at hand to compare the account with. "My Fall" is a compilation of about a dozen articles penned by Mussolini about the time that occurred from the Grand Council meeting to the establishment of the Salo Republic. Overall these provide an interesting look into Mussolini's mind and a chance to understand what he considered important in his life. The accounts are well written and Mussolini does an excellent job of recounting the parts he feels are relevant. It is with an eye towards revisionist history but despite that the documents can still be useful. All of the preface and introductions are done by top notch historians and do an excellent job of putting things in perspective.

5 comments about The Apocalypse of Ahmadinejad: The Revelation of Iran's Nuclear Prophet.

1. The chilling part of this book is not Hitchcock's analysis but the words directly from Ahmadinejad. It is an important read for anyone desiring more insite into the nutcase at the wheel of the Mahdi Army. If you, like me had heard of the Madi Army but didn't understand the significance, then this book is a must read.



2. This book is so current that I can relate back to it almost nightly as I watch the evening news. Now, I know exactly what the news anchors are talking about and reporting. A must read not only for religious readers, but skeptics as well. Stay informed with the world news. Read this book!



3. An excellent, straight forward biblical based analysis of the situation in Iran as it affects all of us. It is well written, easy to understand and shows the relationship of this person and his views against blibical prophecy.



4. Some might think because this author is a Christian who believes in what the Bible says about the endtimes that he is extreme. He is not.
   
   This book is the actual words of the president of Iran. They reveal his hatred of Israel and the United States and his willingness to destroy both.
   
   No one took Adolf Hitler's words seriously either until it was too late. Let's not repeat history.



5. Mark Hitchcock is part of the very disturbing chorus composed of figures such as John Hagee and Tim LaHaye who have created an entire industry of selling books, CDs and videos promoting U.S. imperialism by warning us about Islamic "plans" to conquer the world, or something. His latest, "The Apocalypse Of Ahmadinejad," is a direct shot at the current President of Iran, whom Hitchcock claims is hatching some sort of underground plan to destroy both Israel AND the U.S. to usher in the Islamic equivalent of the Christian Second Coming.
   
   This kind of fantastical alarmism is similar to LaHaye's own writings about Saddam Hussein planning to build a "second Babylon" to usher in the end times, a plan apparently thwarted by the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq which LaHaye and Hitchcock feverishly support. Like John Hagee's "In Defense Of Israel," "The Apocalypse Of Ahmadinejad" suffers more from it's basic lack of good history as it does from the radical, almost cultish religious angle. Consider that even in the opening pages Hitchcock admits he's not very well-informed on geopolitics or political/historical matters, something which should already tell the reader something about the book's validity. Hitchock zeroes in on many of Ahmadinejad's more radical, neo-religious comments pertaining to classic Islamic symbols and beliefs, the problem is Hitchock takes them literally, never mentioning that the current Ayatollah of Iran has even limited Ahmadinejad's powers as President due to some of his more looney comments and is reported to be weary of radical stances Ahmadinejad has taken.
   
   Hitchcock also conveniently ignores basic history such as the fact that the Islamic Republic was not born out of some Satanic plan, but because in 1953 we overthrew Iran's elected, very progressive government headed by Mohammed Mossadegh. The CIA overthrew Mossadegh because he nationalized the nation's oil, a big no no to corporate powers such as ours, and then re-instated the very brutal regime of the Shah who in turn was overthrown in 1979 by what became the current government. Hitchcock, like Hagee and LaHaye also dismisses Israeli crimes in the occupied territories or the fact that Israel is the only real nuclear power in the region, instead painting them as the helpless victims surrounded by evil Muslims including those pesky Palestinians who live in a horrific apartheid state.
   
   Hitchcock also backs the imperial occupation of Iraq, accusing Iran of causing trouble in the country, not the foreign army who invaded the place. But it all somehow works for Hitchcock because Muslims are the children of Satan and they want to destroy us because we're Christian and our women wear miniskirts in America. Iran is a very complex nation, it has the second-highest Jewish population in the Middle East and a very strong, Liberal movement gaining more power little by little.
   
   If tensions get worst between the U.S. and Iran it would most likely happen due to the kind of military interventionism Hitchcock reports, one wonders how he would have reacted to the NIE report, where all 16 intelligence agencies of the U.S. concluded that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. And if Iran did arm itself, wouldn't it be logical considering a foreign power is invading it's neighbors and Israel is bent on dominating the region as seen in the brutal war it engaged with Lebanon in 2006? Again, Hitchcock simply dismisses important things like actual history and settles for Biblical code talk, Ahmadinejad's more curious quotes (not more curious than what President Bush says on a daily basis), and a recycled apocalyptic theory. One wonders how historians will look back at the kind of writings the radical fringe of Christian America produced, let us hope it's not for the need of understanding what drove America as a society to an armageddon of her own making.

5 comments about The Avenger Takes His Place: Andrew Johnson and the 45 Days That Changed the Nation.

1. Andrew Johnson was one of our worst Presidents. In this book, author Means relates the personality of Andy Johnson, and his failings in the leadership role. Johnson was the aftermath of the great Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. To be judged according to what Lincoln did was a gave injustice to Johnson. However, Johnson's personality was not suited to a leadership role in such a viotile time. Johnson was personally brave, and was a thoughtful man. However, once he took a position, he never changed or compromised. This made him an unsuccessful leader in a time when the nation was changing so much. His moderate policies pleased no one, least of all his former enemies.
   
   This is a nice read about a transition time in American history. There have been many, but this one was probably the foremost time when a personality did not take charge and shape the destiny of the country.



2. Shortly after Lincoln's murder, while the entire country reeled from rumors that Lincoln's death was the result of a huge conspiracy that involved Confederate leaders, Herman Melville published "The Martyr," an ominous warning to all those who might've been involved. The "Forgiver"--Lincoln--has been murdered. "But the People in their weeping/ Bare the iron hand/Beware the People weeping/When they bare the iron hand." Why? Because "The Avenger [now] takes [Lincoln's] place."
   
   Andrew Jackson was that terrible Avenger--or so the radical Republicans who wanted the South punished even before Lincoln's assassination hoped. There was good cause to think that Johnson was the man to crush the South. Few politicians had been as vocal about the need to punish treason with a hangman's noose than Andy Johnson, Tennessee's military governor. Moreover, the Republicans believed they could control Johnson in a way that Lincoln always successfully resisted: after all, Johnson was a backwoods lout who'd actually been drunk at his own inauguration! So the consensus was that the Avenger was in place: a President who on his own wanted to punish the South, and who could be manipulated by bloodier-minded, vengeance-seeking northern Republicans.
   
   As author Howard Means points out, however, things didn't quite work out as planned. Johnson proved much more independent than Washington powerbrokers anticipated, and his hang-'em-high attitude toward the South proved to be more rhetorical than real. In fact, his plan for reconstruction pretty closely mirrored the 1863 suggestions Lincoln had left: a 10% solution (readmittance to the Union upon the election of new state governments voted in by at least 10% of eligible voters), and constitutionally guaranteed freedom for blacks. Johnson's stubborn refusal to endorse radical Republican plans to enfranchise blacks led to congressional resistance and then impeachment. After the first 45 days of his presidency, Johnson was increasingly powerless. It would take several administrations for the presidency to recover.
   
   Means' account of the "45 days that changed the nation," as his book's subtitle has it, is well-written. The trouble, however, is that it says virtually nothing that hasn't been written about elsewhere, is severely limited in its documentation, and (bizarrely) doesn't really begin to focus on the 45 days until midway through. It's almost as if there are the beginnings of three books crammed between two covers: a bio of Johnson, an account of the national chaos and confusion following Lincoln's murder (Means shines here, and is to be commended), and (finally!) the conflict between Johnson and the Republican congress over Reconstruction. When it comes to this final point, Means' argument ultimately is that Lincoln probably could've pulled off what Johnson attempted. "It wasn't policy that would bring [Johnson] down so much as it was lack of political skills" (p. 212).* Perhaps. But it takes a lot more arguing than Means supplies to give this conjecture weight.
   
   All in all, then, an interesting but not terribly essential book.
   ________
   * To his credit, Means goes on to provide three other reasons besides lack of diplomacy for why Johnson's moderate Lincoln-inspired plan for Reconstruction failed (pp. 206-225)



3. This is a nice survey about Johnson and the situation he found himself in April 1865. This is partially a Johnson bio -the start of the book, though interesting, focuses on Johnson pre-presidency, leaving less time for the 45 days of the start of his administration (or, rather, finishing Lincoln's plans). So, if you are looking for super in-depth coverage or brand new research material, this is not your cup of tea. But, it's a well written book, and some of the the old newspaper clippings dealing with Lincoln and Johnson are fun to read.



4. I was looking forward to reading this book as I wanted to expand my knowledge of Andrew Johnson and the period immediately after Lincoln's death. Unfortunately this book is neither successful popular nor serious history. It is not particularly well-written and the author lacks the authority or gravitas to make his judgments seem trustworthy. If time is our most valuable commodity, then save yourself a little and read something else on this period.



5. Short political biography of Andrew Johnson traces his political roots up to the time of his ascension to the Presidency after Lincoln was shot. Means shows how sharp the contrast between the adulation of Lincoln in his martyrdom and the mingled concern and neglect of Johnson in his Presidency.
   
   That is, at first. But Means also shows how Johnson's character, political stances, and political personality quickly made him unignorable, shaped the immediate transition period (from war to peace, disunion to union, Lincoln to Johnson), and eventually led to the impeachment and failure of both Johnson's reunification and Republican Reconstruction (covered briefly in an epilogue--this is not a history of Reconstruction). Means also does a good job of capturing the frantic rumor-driven national environment in which these events played out.
   
   Jay Winik's excellent April 1865: The Month That Saved America casts a broader net over Lincoln's assassination, the last days of the Civil War, and the beginning of Johnson's Presidency.

1 comments about Perfect Hostage: A Life of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's Prisoner of Conscience.

1. Perfect Hostage: A Life of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's Prisoner of Conscience
   
   
   Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of assassinated democratic hero Aung San, may be undertaking a hunger strike, according to sources in Thailand. Suu Kyi has refused food for three weeks and has turned away visitors, according to sources quoted by "The Nation." A lawyer who visited her recently said she appears thin and under stress. The 63-year-old Nobel Peace Prize laureate has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years. Merely mentioning her name aloud in the wrong society can bring imprisonment by Burma's ruling generals. Burma is one of the world's most repressive regimes, carefully regulating the media, limiting access by foreigners and repressing all dissent.
   Human rights organizations routinely cite Burma for violating civil liberties, using forced and child labor, and tacitly encouraging opium production. Burma is the world's second largest producer of opium and a source of forced trafficking of women and children for sex. The ruling Junta has gone so far as changing the nation's name to Myanmar, and relocating the administrative capital from Rangoon to an inland city that affords greater secrecy.
   Despite its rich natural resources... petroleum, timber, tin, rubber, zinc, natural gas and hydroelectric power... Burma remains one of Asia's poorest countries because of mismanagement and a centralized economy. It's "Burmese Way to Socialism" was an unequivocal disaster. Politically Burma is a pariah in the international community; its only close ally is China. The US refuses to recognize the "Myanmar" regime.
   
   Against this background, British writer Justin Wintle has written a valuable political biography of Aung San Suu Kyi, now an ageing but tireless advocate for reform. Burma's ruling generals are in a dilemma: Suu Kyi's father, the murdered Aung San, is revered as a founder of Burmese democracy and its independence from colonialism, but his daughter is the regime's avowed enemy. Wintle does an excellent job outlining Aung San Suu Kyi's marriage to British national Michael Aris; her student years at Oxford, and her rise to power, her exile, as well as recent developments in the struggle for freedom.
   It was probably Burma that George Orwell had in mind when he wrote his political satires "1984" and "Animal Farm." Orwell, who was born in India, served in the British Colonial Police in Burma between the World Wars. Everything Orwell wrote about--a civilization turned on its head; a paranoid, insular, xenophobic totalitarian state where Big Brother watches everyone and the Truth Squad launders public opinion--is true in Burma today. In "Burmese Days," Orwell says of his colonial character, Flory:
   "For he had realized, suddenly, that in his heart he was glad to be coming back. This country which he hated was now his native country, his home. He had lived here ten years, and every particle of his body was compounded of Burmese soil. Scenes like these --- the sallow evening light, the old Indian cropping grass, the creak of the cartwheels, the screaming egrets - were more native to him than England. He had sent deep roots, perhaps his deepest, into a foreign country."
   Like Flory, Aung San Suu Kyii is a product of her homeland. But she is exiled within her homeland: she faces the Hobson's Choice of remaining at home in virtual exile; or leaving her homeland and not returning again.
   And the clock is ticking: she is in failing health, past middle age; and separated from her supporters and loved ones. History will judge; we can only hope that moral and economic pressure from the international community will bring about the changes she has given her life to achieve.
   
   
   
   
   Suggestions for further reading:
   Letters From Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi
   Burmese Days by George Orwell
   Finding George Orwell in Burma
   Finding George Orwell in Burma
   Letters from Burma
   Burmese Days
   Freedom from Fear and Other Writings: Revised Edition
   
   
   Why Orwell Matters

No comments about Lula of Brazil: The Story So Far.

5 comments about Evita: In My Own Words.

1. Yes, THAT Evita. Eva Peron. From Argentina. Yes, it IS for you. Yes, she HAS been dead for fifty years. But in 1952 she wrote a book, "Mi Mensaje (My Message)." She knew her days were numbered, so she used those days for writing, and she left a message for the living. That's you.
   It's a view from inside the head of a charismatic leader, the most powerful woman on earth. It's highly personal, highly political, and highly emotional. For reasons you can guess, in this, her last book, she saw no need to be politically correct--and it isn't. Without mentioning any names, she says exactly what she thinks about people, power, the Church, and the military. And precisely because she doesn't mention names, these views of hers are still relevant today.
   This Message also requests a response: it is a call to action--yours.
   "My Message" has been a long time coming. Too dangerous for the political climate of 1952, it has only recently seen the light of day--and even more recently translated into English, under the title "In My Own Words." It's a message for you from the real Evita.



2. This book is an amazing peek into the complex woman that was Eva Peron. To read her words and thoughts almost feels sinful; as if I am reading the diary of an old friend. If you want the real story of the last weeks of Sra. Peron's life, read this book.



3. In 1987 a document which appeared to be the deathbed manuscript of Eva Peron was found in a government archive: here it is in paperback, blending a memoir with controversial political insights into Argentina politics. It's not only controversial for its views, but leading scholars question whether Evita wrote this herself: a detailed introduction by Peron scholar Joseph A. Page presents pro and con arguments surrounding its authenticity. A 'must' for any who would understand Argentinean politics.



4. The words to a song in the famous musical based on her life says it all:
   
   Eva beware your ambition
   It's hungry and cold, can't be controlled, will run wild
   This in a man is danger enough, but you are a woman
   Not even a woman, not very much more than a child
   And whatever you say, I'll not steal you away
   
   The 15 year old Eva Duarte left for Buenos Aires and never came back, and her anger-driven ambition was uncontrolled, unyielding, and unquenchable in its thirst for power and fame and above all else ... revenge. She was more dangerous than her husband and more in charge of the country than he was. Juan Peron's political power depended on Eva and when she died he was exiled in a military coup. Santa Evita to the poor and a evil goddess to the upper classes. She flashed money to hide her shame and deep seated insecurity that never went away. From her humble beginnings in a dirt poor house, an illegitimate and unwanted youngest daughter, to the First Lady of Argentina ... it was her ambition that ultimately destroyed her. Eva worked herself to death at the young age of 33.



5. This book is a wonderful insight into the last hours of The Spiritual Leader of Argentina, and her views on her husband's politics. Eva Peron, who died at the age of 33 of Uterine Cancer purpotedly brought on by her overworking with the Foundation Eva Peron. This book is a must read for all who wish to learn how the mind of Eva Peron worked.

1 comments about Notes from the Trail: Presidential Politics from the Inside Out.

1. What an amazing read during this current exciting and contentious election environment! While campaign narratives are nothing new, this one is truly a refreshing, unique perspective. She documents what was clearly an intensely personal time with both candor and clarity and captured the experience with an incredibly thoughtful, honest, and wise eye. The photos beautifully complement her accounts ranging from humorous anecdotes to a broader, more subtle commentary on modern politics. It is a funny, poignant dive into the whirlwind of presidential campaigns and I now feel as I can better appreciate all that is going on behind the scenes in this 2008 election.

No comments about La Era de las Turbulencias.

5 comments about Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield.

1. This is a fascinating look at a little known president in American history. It covers the convention that nominated Garfield where he was not even a contender. Garfield was a representative for General Sherman who was against General Grant and James Blaine. This convention was one of the most interesting in our history and shows how the freedom of delegates can result in a compromise that gives a candidate acceptable to many. While none would wholeheartedly jump behind Garfield he was able to take a nomination. The New York crowd who backed Grant was particularly bitter. Roscoe Conkling who is made out to be the great villain in this story provides an interesting foil. Chester Arthur is shown to be a man even more unlikely than Garfield for the presidency and it is telling that after his term is up he is hardly even considered for another. The election process also proves to be interesting showing a time before TV and radio when stump speeches reigned supreme. Garfield's assassin turns out to be one of his campaigners who want a political appointment. He feels that by killing Garfield he will be rewarded with a patronage position. Garfield's election seems to bring about a divide in the country that is already distrustful after the election of Rutherford B. Hays. Ironically it is the death of Garfield and the unlikely ascension of Arthur that will heal the nation. This dark horse unified the country in his death and paved the way for civil service reform. For those who have an interest in the Gilded Age this is a must read. For those who are fascinated by political history they will find this a riveting tale that cannot be put down.



2. I enjoyed this book so much, I sent this letter to the author:
   "Dear Mr. Ackerman, I recently read and thoroughly enjoyed your fantastic book, Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield. I feel it is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize for History. I found your writing style to be engrossing as, even though I knew much of the history you recounted, I read each page of the book most eagerly. I had just finished Roy Morris' Fraud of the Century and, as much as I enjoyed it, I found your book to be a more compelling tale. Your character development is superb and I love how you tied the thread of the Conkling/Blaine feud of 1866 to events throughout the book. The final weaving together of the tale in Chapter 15 is a beautiful closure to a moving story that, as you accurately captured, impacted and captivated large numbers of Americans. Your research and documentation were extremely thorough and quite logically incorporated into the chronological flow of events. Your footnotes are pure joy for a politics and history buff (like me). I didn't really feel I had finished the book until I read the endnotes, as they added to my deeper understanding and appreciation of the events. Having lived through the Kennedy assassination, the comparisons with Garfield's demise are most intriguing and the distinctions also profound. Both were younger presidents who had won narrow victories to gain the White House. Both were succeeded by vice presidents who were clearly 'ticket balancers.' But Kennedy's assassination has forever been plagued with conspiracy theories, while Garfield's had no doubt as to the assassin. Alas, to pursue this line of thought would invite rambling on my part, but these ideas do cross my mind. I think your book would make a great movie, except for the sad reality that Hollywood would inevitably destroy a great story. Also, most likely, it isn't the kind of story that would capture much interest among our populace, at least in my judgment (keeping in mind the kinds of movies that seem to proliferate theater complexes these days). If only I were wrong about this! Your recapitulations of future developments of each of the prime players in the book (Chapter 15) are tailor made for the closing of a great film. I found particularly touching the telling of Mollie Garfield having married Joe Stanley Brown. Some minor observations, suggestions, and thoughts I have are as follows: - A table of the results of the 1880 Presidential Election and a national map of the results (as I have attached) might have been a good addition to the book. I did thoroughly enjoy your tables of the key convention ballots. (Obviously, my bias as a mathematician and cartographer is showing.) - I am working on a book (well, it is really more of a tutorial) of the History of Partisan Representation in the United States Congress. As you are well aware, the story of the evenly divided 47th Senate, in and of itself, is a fascinating one and your accounting of the battle for control of the Senate is most illuminating. Your description of the tie-breaking (precedent setting) votes of Chester Arthur is great drama. -- In this vein, while you point out that one of Arthur's first actions as President was to call the Senate into special session to choose a President Pro Tempore, you never related who they selected for this position. My research indicates that Thomas F. Bayard (D-DE) served from October 10 to 13, 1881, David Davis (Independent-IL) from October 13, 1881 to March 3, 1883, and George F. Edmunds (R-VT) from March 3 to December 2, 1883. Perhaps with the Senate evenly split, this particular tale was too complex and off the focus of your storyline to include. - Not to nit-pick, but in case your book is ever reprinted, some minor points: -- on page 205, last line of paragraph two, the spelling of 'ungentlemanly' missed the editors gaze, -- on page 234, end of line 15 should probably read 'In fact' instead of 'If fact.' -- the last endnote 'I am a poor hater' should be attributed to page 453. - If space had provided for it, including the White House family portrait on the cover of the book would have been wonderful. Just viewing this photo (in the context of the murder of Garfield and all you shared about his wife and children) truly conveys the personal tragedy that occurred, separate from the great loss to our country. - Indeed, as you note, we do need a solid, contemporary biography of James G. Blaine. Equally, I would welcome one of Chester A. Arthur. While a product of machine politics, as you described him, he showed character, spirit, decency, and integrity that made him attractive. I would enjoy reading more about him. Again, please accept my thanks for your superb work and for sharing this wonderful tale. Sincerely, R. Bruce Telfeyan"
   --By the way, he did write me back a substantial note of thanks. As did other reviewers, I subsequently visited the Garfield NHS in Mentor, OH, and his burial site (really a beautiful shrine) in the eastern part or Cleveland, OH.



3. Can't praise Ackerman enough for a detailed study of late 19th century political machinations - if you've ever wondered how local politicos could control the nation's power base, this superb effort makes it perfectly clear and understandable. How few people truly understand the power of a relatively unknown figure such as Roscoe Conkling (even if you already knew of Boss Tweed's legacy.....and yet Ackerman's magnificent research and analysis opens this character for the reader's astonishment. Outstanding reportage of the dealings involved in the 1880 Republican convention power-brokering, the desperate struggle between the Stalwarts of Conkling and Arthur versus the Half-Breeds of James Blaine and Garfield, the defining battle for the NY Customs House appointment. Garfield's early bio and in fact his assassination history are not the focus of this book, but who cares? The incisive political intrigue of a mere 8 or 9 months of our presidential history makes for both a terrific read and a wonderful expose of a truly watershed milestone in the evolution of the American governmental system. My highest recommendation for anyone who thinks he knows the Gilded Age, but wants an eye-opener with the readability of an indulgent summer novel.



4. On the morning of July 2, 1881, Garfield was preparing for a trip to New England. While waiting for his train in Washington's Baltimore and Potomac Railroad station, the president was felled and gravely wounded by the shots of an assassin. Garfield was carried to the presidential mansion, the White House. For weeks he was nursed there. Later he was moved to Elberon, New Jersey, to be with his family. Garfield never left his sickbed, and on September 19, 11 weeks after the shooting, he died.
   
   Garfield's assassin was Charles J. Guiteau, a religious fanatic and a Stalwart, who was apparently angered because he had been refused a government job. He stated that he shot Garfield in order "to unite the Republican Party and save the Republic." Guiteau readily gave himself up after the shooting, certain that the people would understand the high-mindedness of his purpose. He was found guilty of murder, however, and was executed in 1882.
   
   Vice President Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as president. A member of the Stalwart faction, he had sided with Conkling in the dispute over Garfield's appointments. He gradually replaced all of Garfield's Cabinet with Stalwarts, but picked them for ability rather than loyalty to Conkling. The shocking nature of Garfield's death fueled a movement in Congress for civil service reform, which had been started but stalled under the Hayes administration. As a result Congress passed the Pendleton Act, which President Arthur signed into law in 1883. It established the Civil Service Commission to ensure that federal jobs would be awarded according to qualifications rather than connections
   
   Several hundred pages of text on Garfield and the politics of his day may seem a stretch, given the gray, hyper-partisan, issueless politics of the Gilded Age. But in Ackerman's hands, the story of Garfield's presidency and murder comes brilliantly alive. Ackerman (an attorney who has worked on Capitol Hill and in the White House and written about Gilded Age scandals) relates with gusto and fizz the story of Garfield's unanticipated nomination as Republican presidential candidate in 1880, his election by a whisker, the travails of his few months in office, and his assassination. It's a story mostly of the struggle for spoils and patronage between two wings of the post-Civil War party of Lincoln. In fact, the lonely, unstable assassin, Charles Guiteau, was a resentful partisan of the wing that Garfield didn't fully reward. Soon after the president's death, and largely as a result, Congress enacted civil service reform. Ackerman brings to life all this and the colorful political figures, mostly senators, who strode the nation's public stage. The trouble is that, like so many works of history these days, it's long on narrative and short, very short, on analysis. You wouldn't know that the political deadlocks of the 1880s deeply, and disastrously, affected the lives of freed slaves, nor do readers learn of agricultural and labor crises, industrial growth or financial shenanigans-the very matters that factional fighting and political murder kept under the rug. It's a pity that Ackerman doesn't apply his skills to such central matters of context and significance.



5. It has often been remarked that the only thing new under the sun is the history one has not read yet and this book is proof of that old adage. Kenneth Ackerman has provided the novice reader with a primer on the dynamics of Gilded Age national politics.
   
   It is highly unlikely, with the exception of Grant, that any of the participants in this book will ever be the subject of an uncritical adoring biography. Garfield and Arthur do come off as ultimately honorable men, but the real protagonists of the book are James G. Blaine and Roscoe Conkling, two titans behaving badly. Ackerman places the nomination of Garfield in the context of battle between these two national figures who played an important role in politics in the years following Reconstruction.
   
   While the behavior of some of the founding fathers is often so honorable as to defy imagination, this manner of operating does not have appeared to have occurred to Conkling and Blaine. Both are bare-knuckled operators who are frequently petulant as children arguing over a soccer ball. No marble men on Mt Rushmore were the politicians of the Gilded Age.
   
   In a way, because Conkling and Blaine are such scoundrels, the book is rather fascinating, almost like a sequel to "Democracy" by Henry Adams (Conkling is supposedly the inspiration for one of the characters). However in this version, circumstances elevate both Blaine and Conkling to the status of Greek Tragedy.
   
   The book opens with the origins of their feud which began on floor of the US House of Representatives. Because the wise old men of congress decided not to intervene, the two men grew to hate with a fervor that lasted until death. The hatred between the two men reached its crescendo at the Republican National Convention of 1880. Blaine was making his first serious run for the presidency and Conkling was sponsoring the third run of General Grant who represented a return to government free of the meddling of reformers.
   
   A deadlocked convention lead to the selection of Garfield who was present to back his own candidate, Secretary of the Treasury, John Sherman. Of all the candidates Garfield seemed the most reasonable choice since he had yet to have made any serious enemies. This would change once Garfield was elected president. The selection of Conkling's crony, Chester Arthur sealed the deal. It appeared that Conkling's Stalwarts and Blaine's reform minded "Half Breeds" had unified around a single candidate.
   
   Garfield was sworn in as president in March 1881 and died less than six months later. The focus of his brief presidency was an argument over the appointment of a Conkling foe to the plum position of plum positions, collector of the New York customs house. This obscure position today was the most lucrative in the Gilded Age. For the senior senator of New York, this was an impossible blow to Conkling's honor. He resigned his seat in a fit of pique and never was significant in politics again.
   
   This argument at the center of US political life so unnerved a Stalwart supporter, Charles J. Guiteau, that he shot Garfield in order to ensure that Chester Arthur would be president. Ackerman's ability to move between the world of the White House, Congress, political smoke filled rooms, and the shabby world of Guiteau is a credit to his skills as a writer and an historian.
   
   Along with bringing back this lost world of Gilded Age politics, Ackerman's story serves to illustrate that while civil service reform (or "snivel service reform" as Conkling dismissed it as) and other changes have taken place, the dynamics that sustained US politics then, with its larger than life personalities seeking advantage over rivals continues on now much as it did then.

1 comments about MANNOCK: The Life and Death of Major Edward Mannock VC, DSO, MC, RAF.

1. The 'King of the Air Fighters,' Edward Corringham 'Mick' Mannock, was killed in action on 26 July 1918. In the intervening years various articles and biographies have appeared, many of which have muddied the historical waters regarding Britain's WWI ace of aces. Now, at last, we have a definitive account of the life and times of this extraordinary fighter pilot and combat leader, courtesy of two top-notch authors, Norman Franks and Andy Saunders.
   
   MANNOCK is a wonderfully-researched and engagingly-written book. Though a fairly slim volume - 192 pages - it packs more factual information on him than most of the other Mannock biographies combined. Not only does MANNOCK create a vivid portrait of the great fighter ace, it also sets the record straight regarding many of the myths that have arisen since 1918.
   
   For example: Mannock downed 73 aircraft. False: He never claimed anywhere near 70. Taffy Jones, who flew with him and wrote a biography of Mick, put his score at 73 to displace Billy Bishop, who Jones hated, as top British ace. (Bishop claimed 72*).
   Item: Mannock was blind in one eye. False: Mannock had slight vision problems in one eye but he wasn't blind.
   Item: Mannock hated Germans with a passion. Exaggerated: Mannock often used anti-German tirades and "sizzle, sizzle, wonk" gallows humor to install in his pilots the killer instinct and to buck up his own failing morale.
   Item: Mannock was suffering from combat fatigue in mid-1917 and should have been sent on leave rather than being made CO of 85 Squadron. True: Though Mannock successfully hid his nervous fatigue from the medico and some 74 Squadron pilots, he was clearly in need of rest. Being a patriot he refused to ask for such leave and did his duty.
   Item: Mannock's body was never found. False: The authors make a convincing case for where Mannock's body is buried and why the mix-up occurred.
   
   Along with many vivid, first-hand reminiscences of Mannock the man and the warrior, the Franks/Saunders books features over 70 evocative photographs of Mick, his squadronmates, their aircraft, squadron life scenes and their German opponents and the aircraft they flew. Several maps are also included.
   
   In short, MANNOCK is aviation history at its best. It deserves six stars and then some! Highly recommended.
   
   *******
   *Since the authors credit Mannock with 61 victories, readers might assume Billy Bishop then becomes top dog since he claimed 72. However the veracity of Bishop's claims has been widely questioned, many aviation historians now discounting almost all his kills. See THE MAKING OF BILLY BISHOP for details.